Dades wrote on May 1, 2012, 07:28:As Comcast employees have posted before on dslreports, its all about how congested your local node is. If its heavily oversold and you're going over then you're getting a warning.

That's the first I've heard that. God I hate Comcast and the monopoly that gives me no choice but them. Hiding behind their new "Xfinity" self-rebrand doesn't change the fact they are among the worst companies in America.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

Dev wrote on Apr 30, 2012, 20:53:Guess who is the guy who appointed like a dozen ex **AA people and lawyers into the DoJ? I'll give you a hint, his name starts with Oba

Having some makes sense, as it's good to have all view points at least mentioned, and these guys are the ones that know the intricacies best.

Are you defending that? That's a pretty specious argument for this situation.

I'll agree that its good to have all viewpoints, so show me the dozen guys from places like EFF that he appointed as well.

I'm defending some. Like, 1. And others that know the viewpoints but are open minded. Just because someone was an attorney for the RIAA doesn't make him an automatic company-loving dickhead. But, from what I've seen, those doing hiring don't do a great job sorting those out.

But it's good to have some. Why do companies that run ads hire their ad managers from the companies they sell to? Because those are the people that know that industry best and can come up with the best solutions for them. It's not uncommon to see people go from P&G to the P&G account at Facebook or Microsoft. There's no fear that they'll be too nice or too soft or too lenient on their old company, because they hire people that are industry people, not company people.

The **AAs are industry groups though. It's not the same thing.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)

Dev wrote on Apr 30, 2012, 20:53:Guess who is the guy who appointed like a dozen ex **AA people and lawyers into the DoJ? I'll give you a hint, his name starts with Oba

Having some makes sense, as it's good to have all view points at least mentioned, and these guys are the ones that know the intricacies best.

Are you defending that? That's a pretty specious argument for this situation.

I'll agree that its good to have all viewpoints, so show me the dozen guys from places like EFF that he appointed as well.

I'm defending some. Like, 1. And others that know the viewpoints but are open minded. Just because someone was an attorney for the RIAA doesn't make him an automatic company-loving dickhead. But, from what I've seen, those doing hiring don't do a great job sorting those out.

But it's good to have some. Why do companies that run ads hire their ad managers from the companies they sell to? Because those are the people that know that industry best and can come up with the best solutions for them. It's not uncommon to see people go from P&G to the P&G account at Facebook or Microsoft. There's no fear that they'll be too nice or too soft or too lenient on their old company, because they hire people that are industry people, not company people.

Australia here, I have a 500gb cap on a 100/2mb line. It is pretty easy to go over 250gig. Especially since our upload and download is counted.

I usually hover around 200-300gig assuming no extra things come up. I don't have cable tv and only recently even bought a tv that could handle Digital signals and still don't watch it. Download everything, and watch it.

Wish more companies would release their older content at cheap prices, many shows I want to watch from the past but I can't find on dvd let alone via a online store.

Caps blow, but they aren't too bad when they are the right size for your requirements. I don't support caps, just know in Australia they aren't going away.... Even our "unlimited" plans on dsl have limits here...

HorrorScope wrote on Apr 30, 2012, 20:47:.Guess who is the guy who appointed like a dozen ex **AA people and lawyers into the DoJ? I'll give you a hint, his name starts with Oba

Having some makes sense, as it's good to have all view points at least mentioned, and these guys are the ones that know the intricacies best.

But you really only want them if they can turn it off, and man, it can be hard to turn your particular viewpoint off, especially when it pays you. During my last degree I had a bigshot entertainment lawyer (music, specifically, representing artists not businesses) come speak. It actually got a little ugly, as he was adamant against such stupid things. There was a very large culture clash in the room, as he basically said all consumers are greedy putzes that do not deserve music. Can't remember the specifics anymore, but he turned the crowd hostile for even wanting digital distribution.

Prez, if you don't mind me asking...how the hell do you get over 250GB? I mean, I am sure I could do it if I tried, I might even be persuaded to believe that I have done it before....but on a regular basis? Job related?

Well, to get the obvious out of the way, on average well less than a gig of it is from torrents. I may occasionally torrent shows I can't find elsewhere on pay services, etc, but in truth, all it took was cutting the cord. My daughter watches two to three hours a day worth of anime and CW crap on Netflix, my wife watches old sitcom re-runs on Hulu for 2 hours a night, and my son and I watch tons of TV over Amazon Instant Video and Netflix. Considering that I'm a night owl, there's usually a TV going non-stop from dusk to dawn in my house. Add in VOIP telephone with two females and a couple of multiplayer gaming-obsessed kids in the house and we blow the cap out of the water without even trying.

Ahh, the amount of people + streaming. I guess I just have always underestimated how much streaming really eats up.

HorrorScope wrote on Apr 30, 2012, 20:47:Because big biz is winning right now. Even though we have a demo pres, repubs have house control. I'm not trying to make it too political, but face it, it's no secret repubs are for big business and that isn't always bad, but lately...

If you look into it you'll find both sides are quite similar in this. They are both lobbied and do laws from that. Plus, if the pres wanted, he could veto anything he's against.Guess who is the guy who appointed like a dozen ex **AA people and lawyers into the DoJ? I'll give you a hint, his name starts with Oba

There are places I make stands and this is one. ATT started capping us, the moment they did the next day, I was looking for a new ISP without meters.

Today I have zero ATT, they lost phone and internet from me $120/mo, now zero. Love it!!! We know it doesn't cost them shit, so obviously someone is making a major blunder over there long term.

Please if you are being capped and not even up against it yet, please see if you have an alternative and go that route. We have to fight this one, they are willing to take us as far back as they can. If they could charge us per character (they used to) they would. Thank AOL for what we have today, but ATT needs to make money somehow and big biz would love to take it to us more.

Dmitri_M wrote on Apr 30, 2012, 12:33:Take it from someone accustomed to caps, it's terrible. I cannot understand why the US would take this step back. It's obviously a way to monetize usage. Is there any proof that data providers are lacking the infrastructure to meet bandwidth demands?

Because big biz is winning right now. Even though we have a demo pres, repubs have house control. I'm not trying to make it too political, but face it, it's no secret repubs are for big business and that isn't always bad, but lately...

eunichron wrote on Apr 30, 2012, 16:04:I've never had Comcast before, but from what I have heard, and this sounds really conspiracy theory-ish, is that Comcast only enforces the caps on people who have internet only, and not those with television and internet. Essentially, Comcast figures that if you have internet and no television service you're probably pirating your television, so those users are the only ones they enforce it on.

Anecdotally, not so. I haven't had TV through Comcast for a few years now and have gone over 250 a few times, nothing happened, not even a warning letter.

Comcast only warns the top 1% of those over the limit and they don't shut you down unless you repeatedly do it.

Prez wrote on Apr 30, 2012, 18:10:Well, to get the obvious out of the way, on average well less than a gig of it is from torrents. I may occasionally torrent shows I can't find elsewhere on pay services, etc, but in truth, all it took was cutting the cord. My daughter watches two to three hours a day worth of anime and CW crap on Netflix, my wife watches old sitcom re-runs on Hulu for 2 hours a night, and my son and I watch tons of TV over Amazon Instant Video and Netflix. Considering that I'm a night owl, there's usually a TV going non-stop from dusk to dawn in my house. Add in VOIP telephone with two females and a couple of multiplayer gaming-obsessed kids in the house and we blow the cap out of the water without even trying.

That's one thing that they don't factor in about caps is family size. A single person and a family of four have the same cap. By my self I used to only rack up 50-60GB a month. My sister cut her cable and internet to save money and they come over here and mooch off of mine. With my sister doing her shit and my niece watching crap on Netflix, I'm now nudging the 150GB cap my ISP has. I don't think it's enforced, but I do have basic cable as well.

Until recently it used to say there was a 30GB cap on their web site, when I was doing double that. But for over a year their site was out of date showing the fastest package as 4Mbit when the standard package was 10Mbit. It's still out of date though as it shows the highest speed package is 10Mbit, but sometime ago they upgraded. I'm getting 12Mbit, and their TV commercial advertises speeds up to 50Mbps. Of course there wasn't a cap when I signed up years ago, and I was never officially informed of a cap.

Prez, if you don't mind me asking...how the hell do you get over 250GB? I mean, I am sure I could do it if I tried, I might even be persuaded to believe that I have done it before....but on a regular basis? Job related?

Well, to get the obvious out of the way, on average well less than a gig of it is from torrents. I may occasionally torrent shows I can't find elsewhere on pay services, etc, but in truth, all it took was cutting the cord. My daughter watches two to three hours a day worth of anime and CW crap on Netflix, my wife watches old sitcom re-runs on Hulu for 2 hours a night, and my son and I watch tons of TV over Amazon Instant Video and Netflix. Considering that I'm a night owl, there's usually a TV going non-stop from dusk to dawn in my house. Add in VOIP telephone with two females and a couple of multiplayer gaming-obsessed kids in the house and we blow the cap out of the water without even trying.

Makes me think of my mothers ISP. They would claim that your connection you are paying for is only for 2 devices and any more would require an extra $8 per device (not computer, device. PS3, smartphone, ect...)

Wondering if we manage to get ISPs to stop doing limits will they turn around and try enforcing this, and having things like routers banned in the contract? Kinda like the whole thing of wifi tethering being against cellphone unlimited data plans? Pay per device, not the gig used?

The biggest issue I have with metered internet is that companies like AT&T do business moves like this that throw the whole "limited pipes" into question.

On one hand, they claim they can't really have heavy internet streams on their networks as it would kill their networks. On the other hand, if they can get even more people to pay them money then suddenly their networks would have no problems with the extra load.

So what is it, do the networks have problems with these loads or they don't? Or do the networks need to be greased regularly and they only run on unleaded cash?

Prez, if you don't mind me asking...how the hell do you get over 250GB? I mean, I am sure I could do it if I tried, I might even be persuaded to believe that I have done it before....but on a regular basis? Job related?

Well, to get the obvious out of the way, on average well less than a gig of it is from torrents. I may occasionally torrent shows I can't find elsewhere on pay services, etc, but in truth, all it took was cutting the cord. My daughter watches two to three hours a day worth of anime and CW crap on Netflix, my wife watches old sitcom re-runs on Hulu for 2 hours a night, and my son and I watch tons of TV over Amazon Instant Video and Netflix. Considering that I'm a night owl, there's usually a TV going non-stop from dusk to dawn in my house. Add in VOIP telephone with two females and a couple of multiplayer gaming-obsessed kids in the house and we blow the cap out of the water without even trying.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

In other words, the broadband cap may have less to do with managing congestion on Comcast's data network than with making over-the-top video services like Netflix and Hulu unattractive for heavy television users who are the most lucrative customers for Comcast's paid video services.

Change the highlighted "may have" to "obviously has" and we have the whole reason for usage caps.

Honestly, since Comcast has instituted the usage meter on their website there hasn't been a month that I didn't exceed the 250gb limit, yet I have yet to have been shut off or even warned. But given the psychological effect usage caps and metered billing have on people (as alluded to in this very well-written editorial) there's no doubt in my mind that many people have scaled back their usage or resisted cutting the cord out of fear. Applied as either a strong-arm tactic or a scare tactic, given the reality of current consumer bandwidth usage trends and general bandwidth availability, usage caps are despicably unethical in my opinion.

I've never had Comcast before, but from what I have heard, and this sounds really conspiracy theory-ish, is that Comcast only enforces the caps on people who have internet only, and not those with television and internet. Essentially, Comcast figures that if you have internet and no television service you're probably pirating your television, so those users are the only ones they enforce it on.

In other words, the broadband cap may have less to do with managing congestion on Comcast's data network than with making over-the-top video services like Netflix and Hulu unattractive for heavy television users who are the most lucrative customers for Comcast's paid video services.

Change the highlighted "may have" to "obviously has" and we have the whole reason for usage caps.

Honestly, since Comcast has instituted the usage meter on their website there hasn't been a month that I didn't exceed the 250gb limit, yet I have yet to have been shut off or even warned. But given the psychological effect usage caps and metered billing have on people (as alluded to in this very well-written editorial) there's no doubt in my mind that many people have scaled back their usage or resisted cutting the cord out of fear. Applied as either a strong-arm tactic or a scare tactic, given the reality of current consumer bandwidth usage trends and general bandwidth availability, usage caps are despicably unethical in my opinion.

I've never had Comcast before, but from what I have heard, and this sounds really conspiracy theory-ish, is that Comcast only enforces the caps on people who have internet only, and not those with television and internet. Essentially, Comcast figures that if you have internet and no television service you're probably pirating your television, so those users are the only ones they enforce it on.